The Protocols of the Elders of NPR
As well they should, Nation Public Radio is backing and shuffling fast to cover the public humiliation of the promulgation of a video showing NPR execs playing funding footsie with two putative donors masquerading as representatives of a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
NPR is quick to point out that one of the executives, Ron Schiller, left the company a week ago for reasons unrelated to the release of the video. They fail, however, to explain why the other executive present, institutional giving director Betsy Liley, is still with the company. It is Lilely who registers her unequivocal approval at NPR being called "National Palestinian Radio."
Rep. Eric Cantor, upon viewing the video (which is now viewable in an unedited version), has called for a defunding of NPR, given our economic straits. That is the least of it. What this video demonstrates most of all is the cultural and ideological ignorance of modern liberalism, more dangerous even than the millions donated to NPR.
What this video reveals is a festival of projection. NPR's own blog contains some of the evidence:
- "The Tea Party is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian — I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move."
- "Tea Party people" aren't "just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."
As someone who supports many Tea Party views and is a former civil rights worker and also the next thing to an atheist, I had to laugh at that one. But that's nothing compared to this:
- "I think what we all believe is if we don't have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air ... it's the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn't have female voices."
Holy Moly! It's hard to imagine Betsy Lily sat there without comment, considering Sharia law -- supported on their website by the people in front of her -- has some of the most Draconian provisions against women in recorded history. Is the explanation for this, as some have suggested, that they were just trying to raise funds at any cost?